Featured Image

TOPEKA (LifeSiteNews) – The Kansas Senate has voted 26-10 to approve proposed legislation that would officially recognize a biologically accurate understanding of sexual identity in state law, drawing a line in the sand against efforts to redefine gender as fluid.

The Daily Wire reports that the Women’s Bill of Rights, passed last Thursday, defines a “female” as an individual “whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a “male” as one whose reproductive system “is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

State Democrats, none of whom voted for the bill in the Senate, blasted it as “offensive,” but its lead sponsor, Republican state Sen. Renee Erickson, argues that “there are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to prisons, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers and other areas where safety and privacy are needed.”

The bill is expected to be vetoed by Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly, but it highlights a new avenue sympathetic states can take to strengthen their legal ground against being pressured to adopt transgender bathroom, pronoun, or athletic policies.

Conservatives (as well as some liberals, such as author J.K. Rowling, who have been branded “trans-exclusionary radical feminists” by their former allies) argue that the effort to separate gender identity from biological reality effectively erases consideration of actual women and their interests, and leads to a host of ills.

Studies find that more than 80% of children experiencing gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence, and that even full “reassignment” surgery often fails to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide. In fact, such radical medical intervention may even exacerbate it by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.

READ: Court to rehear Connecticut female athletes’ case against competing with boys

On top of those issues, experts outside the medical establishment further warn that surgically or chemically reinforcing gender confusion imposes irreversible harm on children, like infertility, impairment of adult sexual function, and reduced life expectancy, as well as the psychological toll of being “locked into” physical alterations regardless of whether they change their minds when they mature, as attested to by many individuals who “detransitioned” back to their true sex.

The issue is grimly illustrated by the story of Yaeli Martinez, a 19-year-old to whom “gender transitioning” was touted as a possible cure for her depression in high school, supported by a high school counselor who withheld what she was going through from her mother. The troubled girl killed herself after trying to live as a man for three years.

READ: New ad slams Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly for supporting pro-transgender policies ‘killing kids’

Mandatory inclusion of “transgender” individuals in opposite-sex sports, meanwhile, is billed as a matter of sensitivity and respect for perceived “gender identity.” But critics argue that indulging transgender athletes in this way undermines the original rational basis for having sex-specific athletics in the first place, thereby depriving female athletes of recognition and professional or academic opportunities. Scientific research affirms that physiology gives males distinct athletic advantages that cannot be fully negated by hormone suppression.

In a 2019 paper published by the Journal of Medical Ethics, New Zealand researchers found that “healthy young men [do] not lose significant muscle mass (or power) when their circulating testosterone levels were reduced to (below International Olympic Committee guidelines) for 20 weeks,” and “indirect effects of testosterone” on factors such as bone structure, lung volume, and heart size “will not be altered by hormone therapy”; therefore, “the advantage to transwomen [biological men] afforded by the [International Olympic Committee] guidelines is an intolerable unfairness.”

Conservatives also argue argue that forcing women and girls to share intimate facilities such as showers and lockers with men and boys violates their privacy, subjects them to needless emotional stress, and gives potential male predators a viable pretext to enter female bathrooms or lockers by simply claiming transgender status, regardless of whether they are sincerely dysphoric.